During the HRC/LOGO Democratic presidential forum last Thursday, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was asked about homophobia in the religious black community, and how he would handle the intolerance coming out of some pulpits in this community, which has been a bonding point with the professional anti-gay white evangelical movement.
Part of his response, which includes what he said to a group of black ministers at a forum in Tennessee:
I specifically talked about the degree to which the notion of gay marriage in black churches has been used to divide, has been used to distract. I specifically pointed out that if there's any pastor here who can point out a marriage that has been broken up as a consequence of seeing two men or two women holding hands, then we --you should tell me, because I haven't seen any evidence of it. .
And what I've also said -- and what I've also said is, if you think that issue is more important to the black family, which is under siege -- if you think that's more important than the fact that black men don't have any jobs and are struggling in the inner cities, then I profoundly disagree with you.
...And the black community, I think, has a diversity of opinion, as you and I both know. There are people who recognize that if we're going to talk about justice and civil rights and fairness, that should apply to all people, not just some. And there are some folks who, coming out of the church, have, you know, elevated one line in Romans above the Sermon in the Mount.
And so my job as a leader, not just of African-Americans but hopefully as a leader of Americans, is to tell the truth, which is this has been a political football that's been used. It is unfortunate. It's got to stop. And when it stops, we will then be able to address the legitimate and serious concerns that face the black family.
It set off this response from the infamously anti-gay tool that trots out to defend religion-based bigotry, Bishop Harry Jackson Jr., of the High Impact Leadership Coalition (which paid for this outlandish ad in Roll Call and USA Today against hate crimes legislation). From OneNewsNow, the "news" organ of the American Family Association:
"He's dead wrong concerning what the Scriptures say, and more importantly, he's dead wrong in terms of the Scriptures and in terms of reading the culture.The culture has gone in a different direction, and the devaluation of marriage is a major problem, and I believe that he's a very dangerous man because he sounds reasonable, he sounds engaging, but he's misinformed"
Bishop Jackson calls Obama a "junior or infant Christian speaking out as though he were an ambassador of the faith." Jackson says he does not buy the notion that the homosexual rights movement is similar to the black civil rights movement either.
"I think what most African-Americans buy is that there should be justice for all, in terms of the outworking of civil law. What they do not buy is that we should rename sin as something righteous and holy," explains Jackson.
Jackson says the average person in a black community says, "wrong is wrong, and right is right, and even if I'm not living right myself, I refuse to call that which is morally wrong right."
Yes, and some in the evangelical movement that you are in bed with now, Bishop Jackson, thought segregation was biblically justified, and that it was "morally wrong" for people of different races to marry, based on scripture. Slavery is endorsed in the bible, as well as stoning adulterers. Cherry picking on the issue of gay rights -- and we're talking about civil, not religious rights -- doesn't fly, particularly with the tragic levels of HIV/AIDS in the black community. This sort of holier-than-thou ignorance and hypocrisy is inexcusable, because it shuts down rational dialogue, silencing and intimidating black LGBTs and potential allies. That's the whole point of the professional anti-gay religion-based bigotry machine.
Related: * High Impact, Low Maintenance: The GOP is counting on Bishop Harry Jackson and his High Impact Leadership Coalition to bring African Americans to the Party. [You must click over to see the photo of Jackson as the spot of color in a stage full of right-wing luminaries back in 2005 -- Schafly, Perkins, Ted Haggard (!), Zell Miller, Daddy Dobson, Bill Donahue, and more.] * Reporting from the NBJC Second Annual Black Church Summit * Clergy Against Hate web site * Faith in America (an organization that challenges individuals and institutions that use religion to justify discrimination and persecution of LGBT citizens).
It's 3:30 in the AM Pacific time, and I was packing to leave for LAX (I'm in the airport now), and I was tuned in to MSNBC to Morning Joe, where Tucker Carlson was subbing and they were discussing last night's HRC/LOGO forum.
Brad Luna of HRC was interviewed on the show, and Tucker went into a -- excuse me -- completely batsh*t dialog with Luna about transgenders and gender reassignment surgery. Carlson was nearly apoplectic and grabbing his "boys" at the thought of someone wanting to transition (clearly only MTF in his mind) and having surgery to remove male genitalia. It came up in the context of John Edwards answering a question about whether he would support a staff member who informed him that they wanted to undergo gender reassignment.
Brad tried ably to place the matter into context, that someone willing to put up with the potential ridicule and rejection to transition to a different gender has already spent a lot of time thinking about reassignment surgery, and that the removal of that part of themselves is not viewed as self-mutilation, as Tucker believes, but as corrective surgery.
Needless to say, logic did not seem to penetrate Mr. Tucker's hysterical mind and his vivid images of a scalpel coming anywhere near his testicles.
Thumbs up to Brad Luna for making it through that insane interview.
They had a lot of fun replaying Governor Richardson's meltdown when he was asked about whether being gay is a choice or biological. I don't think the earnest damage control by his campaign is helping them out of this pickle.
They seemed to view the question Melissa Etheridge posed as part of some orthodoxy in the LGBT community that being gay is not a choice, and any candidate that believes this is not following some sort of LGBT party line. No, the issue last night was that she believed that the governor misheard the question, based on his gay-positive record, which is why she restated it. The fact that he missed an opportunity to clarify at the time is what caused the matter to spin out of control.
The obvious question that seemed to escape Tucker Carlson and the Morning Joe gang is it's clear they don't consider whether their (presumed) heterosexuality was a choice they made. It's fascinating to see that blind spot playing itself out in the discussion. That said, it could have opened up a thoughtful conversation about the fluidity of sexuality generally -- that people tend to want to box our sexuality into fixed orientations, when that may not be true for everyone on the sexual continuum. That doesn't mean, however, that the vast majority of gay and straight folks don't know their orientation early on.
[UPDATE (10:30 PM, PT): I spoke with Governor Richardson just a few moments ago to discuss his remarks at this evening's forum. See below.]
Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.
MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's --
MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.
Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question.
The New Mexico legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's the same thing, Joe. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.
Now, you know, I'll give the most flowery speeches like several that have done here. I am in this business to get things done, to lead, to pass legislation, to bring coalitions together, to bring the country together.
As I type this, the Richardson campaign is in scramble mode and plans to issue a "clarification." His deputy communications director, Katie Roberts is working the press room now. Here's the press release from the governor:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement tonight clarifying an answer to a question during the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum in Los Angeles. The question came from panelist Melissa Etheridge, who asked if he believed homosexuality is a choice.
"I misunderstood the question. Let me be clear- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for. I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."
UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.
He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."
He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."
I pressed him more than once about his refusal to answer the hypothetical question as to whether Richardson would sign a bill passed by the NM state legislature that would grant marriage equality. He repeatedly gave the same answer that he's worked hard to pass domestic partner legislation in his state, and feels that separate but equal DPs are achievable, and don't pose the threat of a legal morass, as we see occurring in NJ with civil unions.
The governor then handed the phone over to Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for the NM equality movement, who worked with the governor to craft the DP bill. She said "it has been drafted to include every possible state benefit," -- acknowledging it cannot do anything about the federal benefits denied gay couples. "It will, however, immediately give our citizens hundreds of protections the currently don't have."
Richardson then came back on the line. I thanked him for his time and, clearly in frustration, he chastised the media for focusing on his "maricon" moment, said "For Christ's sake, why don't you write about my record."
Well, we have focused on the positive aspects of your record at my blog, Governor -- diarist Miss Wild Thing wrote a passionate positive post, as a former resident of New Mexico, about your efforts on behalf of the LGBT community. It makes what happened this evening all the more perplexing.
Another release from Richardson's office, just so folks are aware of his record.
Governor Bill Richardson has an accomplished record fighting for the rights of all Americans. Since taking office, Governor Richardson has: 1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature] 2. Signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature] 3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010] 4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature] 5. Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature] 6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.
***
Joe Solmonese came over to comment on the Richardson debacle and he plans to personally meet with him to discuss the issues. "We really have to have a conversation with Mr. Richardson, that's the first step -- we have to clear the air."
Obama and Edwards avoided land mines, and did fairly well. Edwards actually said that it was mistake to use his personal faith as an excuse to oppose civil rights for LGBT citizens as president.
I have to say that Hillary Clinton probably didn't win over any new fans tonight; those who support her probably remain in her court. While at ease, at times she was condescending and impersonal, communicating a message that the LGBT community needs to be patient.
If I were sitting where you're sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way because, you know, not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly. You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I, you know, understand and wish could happen as well.
An even bigger faux pas, if you can call it that, was Clinton's reassertion that it should be up to the state to decide who can marry. This is simply not acceptable, given the history of bigotry legislated at the state level.
Elizabeth Birch said this about Hillary Clinton's stance on state's rights (via the press pool/Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate):
"I am very disappointed in her analysis around the states rights issue and I intend to have a long talk with her about it because it is simply wrong. Each time in the country when we've had to expunge great bias or prejudice, like slavery, a woman's right to vote, regulating child welfare and a myriad of other issues, what has held addressing those issues back is leaving it to the states. The Federal government has a very particular and bold role to play when there is discrimination operating at the state level and it is their job to step in, be strong, and use the Constitution to eradicate that discrimination."
Well said.
Some post forum quotes (thanks to Karen Ocamb):
Brian Graydon, head of LOGO: "This event was incredibly validating. Gays and Lesbians are a voting bloc-- 4 % or more and that can swing an election, and the candidates know that." He believes their support is a real evolution. the very fact that they all believed (the import of our vote) we were worthy was almost as moving at what they had to say."
Joe Solmonese also indicated that HRC is not likely to endorse anyone in the primaries. "They are all pretty clear on our issues and there's no clear distinction on the issues." ..."I was looking for some revelatory moments about the forum itself. My primary focus was how the candidates focus on religion and faith on the issues." He also wished that Hillary Clinton could have come for a more personal place in explaining her position on marriage equality, but she relied on policy-speak too often. "It's fine to talk about tactics and strategy but it was important to speak from the heart."
"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT Americans. We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community. From repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, supporting equal employment rights, providing full funding for HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to do. The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear. Over the course of the presidential campaign, we will continue to ask these questions and demand real answers from the candidates who were appeared tonight-and from those who didn't show up. The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."
Melissa Etheridge: I'm for all those people, they are all heading in the right direction. Obama mesmerizes me, I was under his spell. Edwards surprised me with his honesty. I'm a huge Hillary fan, but she wanted a better explanation for having been thrown under the bus. For my community I needed to ask that. She talked about sitting next to David Mixner and discussing DADT. Our hopes were so high, and I felt needed to challenge him. She hasn't endorsed anyone.
John A. Perez, a labor leader representing the Food and Commercial Workers Union, he was undecided before the forum, and now he's firmly in the Edwards camp. He had been on the stage with Richardson when he announced his candidacy, so this endorsement of Edwards is significant.
***
I do have to give a thumbs-up to HRC and LOGO for putting on a smoothly run event. The format worked out very well -- 15 minutes of concentrated time with the candidates was definitely a plus.
The questions were tough, and covered a lot of ground -- and the candidates had ample opportunity to expand on their otherwise thumbnail sketches on their views on LGBT rights. While Melissa Etheridge burned some of the precious time up on frivolous chatter that could have been used for additional questions, her earnest questions were often spot-on. In particular, she held Clinton's feet to the fire regarding her own positions as well as the policies of Bill Clinton, that have affected our community.
Almost live. I'm getting settled into the press area at The Production Group Studios where the The Visible Vote '08: A Presidential Forum, put together by HRC and LOGO. They have us pretty squeezed into a dark room (surrounded by black curtains; it's sort of like being in a vampire's chamber.
I was late getting to the venue for the security check, so they had to go through all my bags. I was graciously greeted by Chris Barron and Hilary Rosen and grabbed a bit to eat. On a four hour flight, all they gave us was a bag of pretzels. Thanks, AirTran. I also spoke briefly to one of tonight's questioners, Jonathan Capehart of the WaPo.
***
Karen Ocamb, news editor for IN Los Angeles magazine, just dropped by my table (she's the LGBT pool reporter tonight) and had a few quotes from folks here:
Actress Jane Lynch: she's leaning towards Edwards but could go for Obama. "We've come a long way since 2000. It's ironic that they put targets on gay backs, but that ultimately speeded up the process toward marriage equality."
Andy Tobias, DNC treasurer: "I am enthusiastically neutral."
Phill Wilson, Black AIDS Institute: "I am for whoever has the best AIDS answer."
***
I was interviewed by Mary Breslauer for HRC's satellite radio program The Agenda, and was asked about the role of blogs in this election cycle, what issues are of importance to readers, and making note that this forum is being extremely well-covered by the MSM. She plans to ask them what they are looking for. Some of the MSM folks that I recognized so far, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, and Candy Crowley of CNN. Ah, Arianna Huffington just walked by. There's some dude from Faux News here, but I don't recognize him.
We can see the set for the forum on the big screen TVs now. There are a few comfy chairs with a very small audience that was warmed-up/prepped in an preview show (not on the air). The gentleman doing the warm-up was telling the studio audience that "This is a little like being in a Broadway show...if you see or hear something you like, feel free to clap." Hoo-boy.
With many LGBTQ voters of African descent experiencing the downside of diversity by not being fully included in the both African American and gay communities the HRC-Logo debate is viewed as a white queer public soliloquy giving the illusion of inclusion. -- Rev. Irene Monroe, ordained minister, religion columnist, feminist theologian, questioning whether the HRC/Logo presidential forum will ignore critical issues of concern to the black LGBTQ community
I was just thinking about this issue when I received an email in my inbox from Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project, about an essay there by Reverend Monroe on a population largely unrepresented in either the coverage of or involvement in the forum -- communities of color. Many, Monroe says, aren't even aware of the forum.
"Why would I know about this debate?," LaShaun Williams of New Orleans told me. "Before Katrina the black and white gay communities was separated. Now after Katrina even moreso because only those who have money either stayed during the city's renovation or had money to return back. Our community is smaller and more invisible than ever and the gay paper down here doesn't now and never have circulated where black folks live."
It's quite obvious to queer folks of color that "the movement" is overwhemingly white, well-to-do, urban-dwelling, internet-connected -- and that means a different worldview (given human nature) about what issues are critical than what may be true in minority queer communities.
The queer community is a decisive electoral force that politicians have learned over the years, for their own campaign survival, that they must at least wink at.
But their winks have never cast eyes on this nation's black same gender loving communities. And the issues concerning white queer communities are indeed vastly different from the black community.
"We got an entire community dying of AIDS and I know the first question that's going to come out of somebody's mouth will be that of gay marriage," Rita Johnson of Detroit told me.
Social research shows that African-American same-gender households have everything to gain in the struggle for marriage equality and more to lose when states pass amendments banning marriage equality and other forms of partner recognition. For example, in November 2005, Equality Maryland and the National Black Justice Coalition published "Jumping the Broom: a Black Perspective on Same-Gender Marriage." And the statistics revealed the following: Forty-five percent of black same-sex couples reported stable relationships of five years or longer. And 20 percent of black men and 24 percent of black women in same-sex households are denied health care benefits for their partners by the government.
Marriage is important, but so is tackling the religious homophobia in the black community that drives discussion of sexuality, safer sex, monogomy and honesty deep into the closet.
More than one person of color frustrated by the lack of the gay white establishment's involvement in these issues has told me that it's always couched as a third rail issue -- that they don't want to address black homophobia, for instance, because it's something that needs to be "dealt with internally," meaning it's up to LGBTQ blacks to handle it because the white establishment doesn't want to be perceived as "meddling" in a minority community's "issue."
Of course this is bunk. Homophobia is homophobia, and begging off any struggle simply because it's difficult to negotiate or makes one uncomfortable is a pitiful position to hold, given it's the very same message we've heard in the past from our alleged Democratic allies. How many times were we told back in prior election cycles that we (the gay community as a whole) are responsible for "winning over" the American public to convince them that our civil rights are important. We were told we were on our own because the political risk was too great for them at the time.
What, pray tell, is the difference?
It was enlightening to attend the much-ignored-by-the-MSM National Black Justice Coalition's Second Annual Black Church Summit held in Philly last March. It was a gathering of LGBT and gay-affirming religious leaders, the people at the front lines facing extreme disapproval from many in the socially conservative religious black community. There was a debate between black LGBT allies and leaders, including Rev. Dr. Michael Eric Dyson and Bush-supportingBishop Harry Jackson, Chairman of the High-Impact Leadership Coalition. Jackson is strident in his opposition to LGBT rights.
[G]ay activists around the country are getting nervous that they are about to experience an embarrassing political setback. Instead of amending the hate crimes legislation that protects churches in a substantive way, they are simply crying out in a louder, more threatening manner. Gay advocates are not looking for fairness; they are looking for an upper hand.
The establishment LGBT rights movement has not, until recently, even addressed the success of the white evangelical movement in capitalizing on institutionalized homophobia in the black church, even though these churches should be wary of bedding down with a movement that otherwise wants nothing to do with black issues on any other occasion.
That's how deep the homophobia goes, and that's where support is needed, and why diverse voices need to be present at forums like the HRC/Logo program. The questions raised should be able to be seen and heard by all. Low-wealth LGBT citizens may not have cable or broadband. They are just as affected by the issues that will be discussed as the larger LGBT community of influence, yet many are left with the feeling, rightly or wrongly, intentionally or not, this is a "white-only" affair. There's a lot of work to do if people on both sides of the color line are willing to roll their sleeves up and deal with feeling uncomfortable and move forward.
It seems like I just came back from Yearly Kos (oh that's right, I did, and I'm really tired), but I'm off on a loooong flight this AM to L.A. today to liveblog the The Visible Vote '08: A Presidential Forum, pulled together by HRC and LOGO. It's been made clear that this is not billed as a debate, but a conversation with the Democratic candidates on LGBT issues -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel (because of scheduling conflicts, Dodd and Biden will not be present).
In this format, for better or worse, each candidate will appear solo, on the stage for 15 minutes taking questions from Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese and singer Melissa Etheridge, as well as journalists Margaret Carlson and Jonathan Capehart, and over 4,000 questions were submitted at VisibleVote08.com.
The forum airs at 9PM ET on LOGO with the live webcast at The Visible Vote '08. There will be a studio audience there, but the set up will be the same as it was for the PBS debate -- bloggers and the rest of the media will be off in a different, nearby building, and I was told by MTV/LOGO that none of the candidates will appear afterward in the spin room.
The candidates responded to HRC's questionnaire on LGBT rights, so you have a general idea of their positions. Answers were released in June in a grid format without candidate comments). The full responses from Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson and Gravel were made available later, after the Edwards camp released his full answers to the questionnaire to me, (I posted them and blogged about it here).
"He's dead wrong concerning what the Scriptures say, and more importantly, he's dead wrong in terms of the Scriptures and in terms of reading the culture.The culture has gone in a different direction, and the devaluation of marriage is a major problem, and I believe that he's a very dangerous man because he sounds reasonable, he sounds engaging, but he's misinformed"
